LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

1973). Several factors determine the extent of injustice and anger, most of which revolve around the so-called offender’s responsibility (Miller, 2001). The latter includes the offender’s (alleged) intent to inflict harm as well as foreseeability thereof. Accordingly, if certain behavior is interpreted as having been committed intentionally, perhaps by consciously targeting the victim country, (moralistic) anger and injustice are more severe due to the harm doer’s responsibility than if that measure was to have occurred in an unplanned, perhaps even coincidental manner (Dyck & Rule, 1978; Heider, 1958). Likewise, foreseeability of harm is also found to contribute to the victim’s perception of anger and injustice. In this case, the harm doer is still held accountable, as it did not prevent a likely offense from occurring in the first place (Goffmann, 1971). Further factors affecting the level of anger and injustice may include: the stance and responses of third parties, the level of publicity of the offense (and following responses), duration of the offense, sincerity of the offender, the relationship between victim and perpetrator (incl. status), and additional cultural or social factors (Miller, 2001). On the other hand, preliminary research suggests that justifications by the offender can have a mitigating effect on the level of anger and injustice experienced. For instance, an explanation provided can alleviate anger by signaling acknowledgment of the victim’s respect needs (Folger & Martin, 1986; Sitkin & Bies, 1993). This positive effect may be somewhat stronger if the offender does not just explain his actions but even apologizes for the harm inflicted (Heider, 1958). In sum, disrespect experiences emerge when external parties, deliberatively or inadvertently, downgrade an actor’s self-ascribed status and identity conceptions or violate claims (e.g. rights, norms, ideas) on which such self-worth conceptions are based upon.

      Against this backdrop, disrespect experiences are commonly associated with specific patterns of social interaction and preferences. First, if an actor’s [34] status and identity conceptions³¹ are seen as not being recognized adequately, it may feel inclined to respond in a way deemed necessary to obtain such recognition. Similar to the protection of self-worth, retaliation may be deemed necessary by the victim to maintain its national image and honor. Either way, such kind of retaliation can be categorized as “a form of self-defense” (Miller, 2001, p. 534). Responses can range from verbal complaints³² and protests, withdrawal from cooperation or the introduction of conditionality, to outright confrontation and violent retribution³³. In this vein, Lindemann found that non-recognition, for instance of a state’s self-ascribed right to equal sovereignty, can arouse aggressive responses (2010, p. 6). Equally, studies yield that struggles over status and resulting uncertainties thereof can be a significant source of disrespect. That said, status conflicts are found to be capable of spurring aggression that in turn inclines actors to pursue both assertive and confronting approaches rather than cooperative ones (Freedman, 2016; Hogg, 2001; Volgy, et al., 2011; Wohlforth, 2009). A non-response, in contrast, is not a feasible option to retaliation. Inaction toward and neglect of (open) acts of disrespect further degrade the victim’s status and prestige, both in the eyes of itself and others (Arendt, 1963; Felson, 1982; Vidmar, 2000) but also bear the risk of depriving it of control over the public definition and categorization of the insult (Ringmar, 1996). Moreover, inaction limits the victim’s capacities to prevent disrespect in similar conflicts in the future, because it already signaled that ‘it can be treated this way’ (Lind, 2000). In addition, anger and injustice can activate (or support) similar retaliatory patterns. Accordingly, preliminary research indicates that both negatively affect a victim’s capability to process information as well as curtail its desire for information about the perpetrator, eventually culminating in a perception bias solely focused on negative aspects of the latter’s behavior. In lack of appropriate information and facing such negativity bias, victims neither properly reflect on their own past wrongdoings, nor on potential negative ramifications of their own future retaliatory responses to other actors (Geva & Skorick, 2006; Lerner & Keltner, 2000, 2001; Rosen, 2005). In other words, the increase in disrespect-induced [35] anger and injustice negatively influences the victim’s empathy³⁴. Consequently, a less emphatic but emotional victim is also less hesitant to retaliate against the perpetrator, as such a response is deemed increasingly necessary, justifiable and just (Carpenter & Darley, 1978; Robinson & Darley, 1995; Tedeschi et al., 1974). In a similar vein, a developed sense of injustice is expected to enhance a victim’s propensity to engage in formal and informal efforts of (subjective) justice restoration (Miller, 2001). As a result, anger and injustice can fuel fiercer, riskier, less rational, assertive and perhaps even more aggressive responses (Lerner & Keltner, 2001; Miller, 2001; Rosen, 2005), hence breaking with previous norms and preferences (McDermott, 2004), for instance by negatively affecting the victim’s previous openness to cooperate with the perpetrator (Allred et al., 1997).

      In sum, the experience of disrespect is closely associated³⁵ with resistance and retaliation³⁶ as well as negative sentiment. This, in turn, is unlikely to leave the victim’s previous attitude on the feasibility of cooperation unaffected. At the same time, disrespect renders a non-response and neglect increasingly improbable. Possible implications thereof for international politics are subject to discussion in the following section.

      2.1.1.4 Possible Political Implications of Respect and Disrespect

      In light of this background, international respect is generally associated with a number of political implications. First and foremost, respectful behavior is said to provide states, if interpreted accordingly, with a confirmation of their self-ascribed self-worth conceptions and derived claims and expectations, thereby [36] mitigating feelings of injustice and anger. The curtailed generation of adverse sentiment and contempt, in turn, may increase a victim state’s ability and will to identify and consider other countries’ psychological needs and expectations. Empathy and thorough knowledge about other states’ self-evaluative needs, motives and expectations, in turn, help others to better comprehend their behavior and intentions, thereby reducing the risk of misperceptions that lead to confronting policy responses, as reflected in both measures and preferences (Kelman, 2005). In addition, (mutual) respect is said to facilitate the establishment of trust and confidence among states and alleviate concerns about relative status. For instance, mutually acknowledged status differences can discourage actors from adopting confronting policy measures and are capable of generating mutual understanding and trust instead (Hogg & Abrams, 2003). Ultimately, respected and recognized states that feel that their needs are taken seriously, are more inclined to pursue policies of cooperation³⁷, are keener to engage in cooperative collaboration and less likely to defect from cooperation in the future (Kelman, 2005; Tyler & Blader, 2000). In the same vein, several studies suggest that the probability of future defection from (norms of) cooperation declines even further if respect is experienced over a longer period of time (Checkel, 2005). Such logic pertaining to a link between respect and cooperation is jointly shared by Wolf (2011) contending, “the stronger the respect between two actors, especially their respect for each other’s achievements, faculties, and importance, the easier they will arrive at a common definition and solution for a problem at hand“ (p. 125).

      Conversely, a perceived lack of due respect can significantly hamper international cooperation, not least as inaction or a ‘simply carry on mentality’ by the victim state is quite improbable if disrespect is perceived to be severe. For instance, disagreement on status and non-recognition of status expectations can lead to status conflicts (Gould, 2003) that in turn hamper cooperation and the generation of trust and confidence. Even worse, perceived disrespect fuels adverse sentiment while prompting states to adopt confronting attitudes, riskier measures and eventually engage in conflict-prone behavior. In general, disrespect experiences negatively affect the relationship between victim and perpetrator (and beyond). This dynamic generates a political dilemma: Somewhat akin to a typical game-theory scenario³⁸ (Morrow, 1994; Snidal, 1985), victims of disrespect, especially if experiencing anger and injustice, [37] may feel a strong necessity to adopt retaliatory measures that are not in line with their initial preferences and previous norms. At the same time, disrespect-induced anger is said to negatively affect the ability and willingness of state actors to make decisions in an informed, somewhat neutral, risk-averse and empathic manner (Kahnemann & Tversky, 1979). A high level of disrespect fuels the victim state’s urge to redress this situation and “seek justice through acts of commission”

Скачать книгу